We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
82 II. AREAS AND ELEMENTS
Granted that Day of Wrath runs counter to the declared preferences of the medium, it is of a certain interest cinematically in two respects. First, by breathing life into counterparts of paintings this film creates the illusion of nascent movement, which after all is a cinematic subject. Second, Day of Wrath definitely exerts the appeal of authenticity, and the cinematic effect thus produced is sufficiently intense to divert attention from the fact that it has been obtained in the uncinematic area of history. The film might almost be called a dramatized pictorial record, even though it bears on a universe which can only be constructed, not recorded. Both Joan of Arc and Day of Wrath, then, have traits of a documentary— the former because it breaks away from the past, the latter because it is faithful to it.
Examples of the second alternative are not infrequent. Feyder in his Carnival in Flanders also takes his cue from the art of the historical period he depicts. Parts of Castellani's Romeo and Juliet and of Gate of Hell follow the very same pattern. Of the Czech film The Emperor and the Golem a 1955 New York review says that "nearly every scene suggests a period painting come to life."6
FANTASY
From the cinematic viewpoint it is perhaps best to term "fantasy" all predominantly visual experiences, avowedly imagined or believed to be true to fact, which belong to worlds beyond camera-reality proper— the supernatural, visions of any kind, poetic imagery, hallucinations, dreams, etc. Unlike history, which is problematic cinematically because it lacks the character of present-day actuality, the fantastic may manifest itself here and now and fuse with real-life impressions. But since it lies outside the area of physical existence, it seems to be as unmanageable as the past in terms of the cinematic approach.
And yet, throughout the history of the medium, fantasy has been a much-coveted theme. Prompted by their formative urges, film makers have tried since the days of Melies to annex to the screen this realm, with its apparitions, angels, demons and kaleidoscopic dream images, as is illustrated by an unending series of films, such as Nosferatu, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, The Thief of Bagdad, La Fille d'eau, La Petite Marchande d'allumettes, Vampyr, Peter Pan, Peter Ibbetson, Dead of Night, etc., etc.
Common practice is backed up by theory. Most writers on film see no reason for differentiating between the unreal and the real and, accordingly, refuse to consider camera-reality a privileged area. Rene Clair, for